[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915: Drop legacy execbuffer support

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:31:33PM -0600, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> 
> On March 11, 2021 20:26:06 "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:00:49 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > 
> > > libdrm has supported the newer execbuffer2 ioctl and using it by default
> > > when it exists since libdrm commit b50964027bef249a0cc3d511de05c2464e0a1e22
> > > which landed Mar 2, 2010.  The i915 and i965 drivers in Mesa at the time
> > > both used libdrm and so did the Intel X11 back-end.  The SNA back-end
> > > for X11 has always used execbuffer2.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> > > ---
> > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c    | 100 ------------------
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h    |   2 -
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c               |   2 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 103 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Don't we want to clean up references to legacy execbuffer in
> > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h too?
> 
> I thought about that but Daniel said we should leave them. Maybe a comment
> is in order?

These headers are copied unchanged to userspace for building. We don't use
kernel-headers packages directly in any of our userspace (I hope at
least), but still better safe than sorry and avoid compilation failures
simply due to updated uapi headers that lost a few old things.

Also we need at least the struct size because that's encoded in the ioctl
number, and at that point might as well keep the entire thing.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch